Don't be fooled by the cask

I bought a 20cl sample of Bunnahabhain that had been matured for 14 years in a Pedro Ximenez Noe cask, at the distillery. It was in a dark bottle, so I could not see the colour of the whisky. I expected to see a dark coloured whisky like the Dalmore or Glendronach, but it was light golden. Andrew Brown, distillery manager at Bunnahabhain, told me that the cask was very old and used several times to mature whisky before Bunnahabhain got it. It turned out to be inactive.

So to a comparison between the Bunnahabhain and a Caperdonich 18 years old refill American oak hogshead matured whisky.

First some facts about the whiskies:
1) Bunnahabhain, cask 555, 14 years old, 54.8% abv., Pedro Ximenez Noe sherry butt, bottled 26 March 2018.
2) Caperdonich, single cask, Douglas Laing's, Old Particular, 312 bottles, refill hogshead, REF-DL9963, distilled June 1995, bottled August 2013, 18 years old, 48.4% abv.

The Bunna was slightly more golden than the pale gold Caperdonich.

The Bunna showed sweetness and custard overpowered by new make on the nose, while the Caperdonich was sweet with vanilla and fruitiness. The Caperdonich was quite gentel.

The Bunna had very little alcohol sting, while the Capardonich seemed a bit stronger with more sting even though it had a lower abv., but it was not overpowering.

In addition to the custard and new make, the Bunna showed some oakiness in the mouth. The aftertast was light and short.

The Caperdonich had a light and fruity tast. The aftertast was light and delicate, but short.

With water the Bunna lost the oakiness, but it didn't improve. The Caperdonich took the water very well and turned into pure delight - a candy store.

Conclusion: Both whiskies had the character of American oak. I could not find any hint of Noe sherry in the Bunna. The Bunna could have doubled for a three year old, while the Caperdonich had a lot of nice American oak fruitiness. A very good whisky.

One last comment: Gonzales Byass Noe solera casks are made of American oak. Without the charcoal the sherry cask was not able to remove the new make even after 14 years. In addition it was not able to give anything to the whisky to overpower the new make due to inactivity.

Even though I didn't find the Bunnahabhain any good, it was an interesting experience. I love the policy of bottling these 20cl samples. They give a good understanding of cask maturation.

Glenfiddich - now and then

How is todays Glenfiddich 12 year old (L2B 7430 1708 08:37) compared to the Pure Malt (LA 4287 0106 42) edition of the late 80’s and early 90’s? Since todays 12 year old is the successor of the Pure Malt, you could expect them to be quite similar. Starting with the colour, you get an indication of differences. The Pure Malt is much paler than the 12 year old. After what I understand, the Pure Malt is eight to ten years old, but I cannot find any big difference in maturity between the two.

I find todays Glenfiddich very fruity with a prominent aroma of pears - almost artificially intense. The Pure Malt has still pears, but with a nutty oily character. The Glenfiddich of today is light drinking and very commercial. The old one is much more demanding, and I love it. I prefer the old one, but I think the new one is a better market match.

GlenDronach 14 - Oak influence

GlenDronach 14 is an interesting release due to the combination of casks. It is initially matured in re-charred European oak puncheons and finished in American virgin oak casks. I assume that the puncheons have been used to mature sherry. The combination of casks can help to answer some questions concerning cask influence.

How much sherry influence do we have from the puncheons?

        I find no sherry influence. Since the cask is re-charred, it has probably been used to mature whisky several times sucking the sherry out of the wood. Then the inactive casks have been re-charred, probably removing the remainder of sherry if any at all.

How much European oak characteristics like tannins do we have? Will a re-charred European oak cask have any influence at all?

-      Re-charring a cask will boost the vanilla influence, caramelize hydrocarbons and give a smoky influence. The caramelized hydrocarbons will give colour to the whisky. Characteristics like tannins and lactones are depleted and will not be regenerated by charring. The result is that the re-charred casks mainly gives vanilla, sweetness, colour and a minor smoky character to the whisky.

Will an American oak virgin cask give the whisky a bourbon like character?

-     

        An American oak virgin cask is the same type of cask used for maturing bourbon. I assume that the cask is charred. The cask gives typical bourbon characteristics like vanilla, coconut and tropical fruits.

The conclusion is that the GlenDronach 14 has many of the characteristics of a bourbon. It is an atypical scotch whisky, and a good alternative to bourbon, swapping corn with barley. GlenDronach 14 can absolutely be recommended.

Tullibardine - a vertical tasting

The Tullibardine new make is surprisingly clean and sweet with strawberry yoghurt, fruitiness and some citrus on the nose. The new make is unpeated and without the characteristic feinty sheep barn off-note. The new make should be a good base for wood maturation. Tullibardine has a nice concept for learning about the effect of maturation in different types of casks.

The base product Suvereign is matured for ten years in first fill bourbon barrels. Then we have the cask finishes 225 Sauterne, 228 Burgundy and 500 Sherry that are matured for one extra year in the respective casks. The number indicate the size of the cask.

The Suvereign has a nice clean vanilla, citrus and delicate oak nose. It is fruity with apple, pear and marzipan. Coconut is more prominent towards the finish which is relatively short.

The Sauterne finished is floral, sweeter and more intense than the Suvereign. It is creamy and citrusy with some orange and pineapple. It has a lot of vanilla and honey. It is perhaps too much, and I probably would prefer the Suvereign in the long run.

The Burgundy is finished in pinot noir casks. The Suvereign is increased with chocolate, spice and red berries. Surprisingly there is nail polish remover, new make and potato starch on the nose. It is a bit sour with vinegar, and it dies with water, turning into tannins. It is not my favourite, but neither as bad as the description should indicate.

The Sherry finished has some new make on the nose, but it is far less than the Burgundy. It has prunes, crème brulee, cinnamon and nutmeg on the nose, and it is a bit sour with a tiny bit of sulphur, and perhaps a bit metallic. It has a quite dry and salty finish. A nice whisky but I probably prefer the Suvereign. I can think of many sherry matured whiskies that I would prefer to this one.

The 20 year old matured in first fill and second fill bourbon barrels and the 25 year old matured in first fill and second fill Oloroso hogsheads seem interesting. The same does The Marray 2004 which is matured in first fill bourbon casks and bottled at 56.1%. I still have to try these.

Ceobanach compared

The Ardbeg 10 year old has been one of my favourites for many years, but since introduction of the new distillate from 1998 and onward, the quality of the 10 year old has gradually decreased.

Today Ardbeg is getting serious competition from Bunnahabhain which is very good at its best, but a chocking catastrophe at its worst.

This evening I compared Bunnahabhain Ceobanach, Bunnahabhain Toiteach, Ardbeg 10 and the Edradour Ballechin 10 year old.

I prefer my peated ex-bourbon matured whiskies without the new make character which I find rancid and stale, and without the rubber/sulphur character which maturation in good quality ex-bourbon casks should remove.

The Toiteach has too much new make character and seems immature. The new make hides the nice Bunnahabhain character which I find plenty of in the Ceobanach. To my taste Toiteach should never have been bottled. But I will give Toiteach one thing, when getting it in the mouth and trying to forget the nose, it is quite good.

The Ceobanach is a beautiful whisky with citrus, sweetness, light fruitiness and flowers on the nose. The smoke is a crystal clear wood smoke. Today I find the Ceobanach much better than the Ardbeg 10 year old which has got more of the new make and rubber/sulphur part than the old 10 year old. I find the Ceobanach to be more citrusy, sweet, fruity and floral on the nose than Ardbeg. Ardbeg 10 is still a good whisky.

But, are there other good peated whiskies out there? Fortunately, yes! This evening I gave the Ballechin 10 year old a chance. With some sherry matured whisky in it, it has a hint of new make one the nose and is a bit heavier than the Ceobanach. It has also a hint of rubber and sulphur, but it works ok with a heavier whisky. All in all, I find the Ballechin to be a good whisky.

I can sit down and enjoy Ceobanach, Ardbeg 10 and Ballechin, but the Toiteach is a pain.

Aftermath

Got a sample of Bunnahabhain Moine, the Swedish edition from 2015, and compared Moine, Toiteach and Ceobanach.

The Moine has quite a bit of new make character, but lack the decay of the Toiteach. Both are young NAS whiskies, but I think that the sherry influence of the Toiteach is a problem. The casks have not been able to remove the decay character from the Toiteach, while the more pronounced ex-bourbon influence of the Moine has. 

The nose of the Moine is sweet, vanilla and fruity, but the citrus and floral part is drowned by the new make character. The Moine is not bad on its own, but head to head with Ceobanach it has a long way to go. It is too young.

A problem with the Moine is that the aftertaste fades away quite fast. It goes from sweet and new make to peppery and then dryness which fades away fast.

The Toiteach goes from intense to dry and then heavy pepper for a good while before getting dry and fading away. It has a longer aftertaste than the Moine. The Ceobanach is less peppery with a long dry oaky aftertaste. It is very clean and nice.

The Moine works well on its own, but I will rather buy a bottle of Ceobanach. I find Moine to be a much better whisky than the Toiteach.

Ardbeg Almost There against the ten year old

Comparing two whiskies head to head gives me often a better experience than analyzing them individually. This time it is the Ardbeg Almost There against the ten year old.

I must face the sad fact that I have reached the bottom of my Almost There bottle. What did I do with the last drops? To make the most out of the last memory, I needed a frame of reference. What better way than to use the ten year old? As Mickey told me when I asked for more of the rough rich style: "Almost There, I call it Almost Perfect".

I find AT richer and more intense than the 10Y. The abv (54.1% versus 46%) and the balance between first and refill bourbon casks plays a major role. Both whiskies are very pale, though the AT is slightly more golden. AT has an intense brutality that makes it still to tear links, although it has reached nine years and is about to be tamed. The smoke of the AT is more intense and richer than in the 10Y. AT shows more sweetness, fruitiness, citrus and vanilla than the 10Y. This contributes to the richness. The Ardbeg finish of salt, pepper and seaweed is also more intense in AT, which has a more intense astringent aftertaste than the 10Y. I feel I get closer to the barrels in AT than in the 10Y, which is characterized by being rounder and more balanced than the AT. I find the smoke in the 10Y more abraded than in the AT, which is more reminiscent of a fire plot. I think the 10Y has a cleaner, sharper and more acidic smoke with a trace of ashes, although the overall impression is that the smoke in the 10Y is more balanced.

The savagery of Ardbeg Almost There will be missed.

Ardbeg Almost There, 27^th February 2007 to 14^th November 2014

R.I.P.

No age statement (NAS)

Is NAS a good thing for whisky consumers? That depends on the quality of the whisky. What is the motivation for making a NAS whisky? Obviously utilizing the stock and maximizing the profit without destroying the company’s reputation. After all, we are talking business. It is a fair thing to provide profit for the owners. Why does NAS fly? Most whisky drinkers are not into the details of NAS. A 5-year old statement could prevent the average whisky consumer from buying the whisky. A NAS seems more exclusive. A whisky beyond age.

As long as the warehouses flowed over with aged whiskies from the 80’s, the producers told us that age matters, and yes – age matters. If you think that maturation is a good thing, it is reasonable that an older whisky is better than a younger one, at least up to a point. When matured too long, a whisky can develop unpleasant flavours. Woodiness is one such flavour.

I can see one good reason for marketing a whisky as NAS. Let us say you have an 18 year old vatting that lacks freshness, and you find this freshness in a 5 year old. Adding a small amount of the 5 year old, gives you the perfect whisky. Given the general expectation that age matters, it will be better marketing it as a NAS than a 5 year old, when it for all practical purposes is 18 years old.

However, is this how it works? My experience says no. The NAS whiskies seem often inferior. Probably because the NAS whiskies are a result of too little aged whisky, forcing the use of a larger amount of younger whiskies. Then we are back to age matters.

NAS whiskies could be a good thing, but will probably be the way into immature inferior whiskies giving less value for money. Face it, when it comes to aged whiskies, demand is larger than supply. Since age matters, NAS sounds better than 5 year old. If age did not matter, the producers would not be afraid of marketing 5 year olds.

One way to compare NAS whiskies and whiskies with an age statement, is to compare two whiskies in the same price category from the same distillery. Which one do you think is the best? My experience so far is that the one with an age statement is the best.

However, is NAS all negative? One positive effect of NAS is diversity. The master blenders get one extra degree of liberty composing their whiskies, and the knowledgeable consumer gets more opportunities to analyse the distillery character.

Looking 20 years into the future, we may have returned to a situation with warehouses filled to the rim with aged whiskies, and then again, age will matter. Meanwhile, sit down, enjoy your whisky and wait for the NAS to backfire. It probably will. The question is when.

Bowmore - Mariner against White Sands

The Mariner is a 15 year old with a mix of ex-bourbon and ex-sherry cask matured whisky. White Sands is a 17 year old, and matured in ex-bourbon casks. The Mariner is deep copper while the WS is a bit lighter, but still quite dark. Both are 43% abv, coloured and filtered. The Mariner is quite heavy fruity with apple, vanilla and a bit soapiness, while WS has lighter fruitiness with vanilla, turning woody with slightly sour wood smoke, resin and light cinnamon and ginger spiciness. The Mariner is a bit rougher than the more round and elegant but distinct WS. The Mariner has a more sweet peat smoke. Both have a quite light and fast fading aftertaste. The WS aftertaste is a bit drier and longer lasting. Both are nice whiskies in their own way, but I go for the lighter more elegant White Sands.

Connoisseurs Choice

One of the nice things about malt whisky is the independent bottlings. Gordon & MacPhail is in this category with their Connoisseur's Choice range. This evenings tasting was a comparison between six whiskies from this range.

All the whiskies are matured in refill casks, avoiding the cask overpowering the approximately 20 year old whiskies. First fill casks could give to much wood influence. There is no information about what kind of wood that's used in the sherry hogsheads, American or European. The American refill hogsheads are probably ex bourbon casks.

Distillery	Cask	Abv.	Distilled	Bottled
Bladnoch	Refill sherry hogshead	43%	1993
Clynelish	Refill sherry butt	43%	1994
Craigellachie	Refill sherry hogshead	43%	1991
Glendullan	Refill sherry hogshead	43%	1993
Glen Keith	Refill American hogsh.	46%	1993	2011
Pittyvaich	Refill American hogsh.	43%	1993

All the whiskies except Glen Keith are pale gold, while Glen Keith is deep gold. Bladnoch and Craigellachie give a feeling of a swelling tongue in the finish.

Bladnoch: Vanilla, peach, fruity, candy, oak, pine, earthy. Dry oaky astringent finish. Feeling of swelling tongue.

Clynelish: Fruity and and toasty with vanilla in the background. Light, round and sweet with an astringent finish.

Craigellachie: Hint of chlorine, vanilla and fruity. Light, round and sweet. Not astringent, but a very dry finish with pronounced wheat. Feeling of swelling tongue.

Glendullan: Fruity, pear and bubblegum with vanilla in the background. Round and delicate. Lightest of the six. Dry and astringent finish.

Glen Keith: Pronounced coconut from nose to finish. Sweet, fruity and floral. Fresh apple and pepper. Full body. Astringent finish. My favorite among the six whiskies.

Pittyvaich: Fruity, vanilla, pineapple, floral, candy, toasty and sweet. Astringent finish.

Gjoleid

Gjoleid is a Norwegian malt whisky from Arcus at Gjelleråsen. The malt is made from barley and wheat, which makes the whisky a malt whisky according to EU regulations, but not according to Scottish rules.

The malt consists of pale barley, pale wheat and beech wood smoked barley. The wart is fermented for ten days using Safwhisky M-1 dry yeast. The heart of the distillate is distilled to 73.5 % abv.

I tested two bottles – one matured in a first fill bourbon barrel, and the other matured in an Oloroso sherry butt. Both casks are made of American Oak. The casks were filled with identical distillate, and stored at 18°C for three and a half years. The bottles were bottle 280 of 448 from bourbon barrel (200 litres) number 9359, and bottle 1031 of 1221 from sherry butt (500 litres) number 9305. The whisky was bottled at 47 % abv. in 50 cl bottles.

The bourbon matured whisky has a golden colour. The whisky is fruity with a lot of vanilla and coco. The fruity flavour is dominated by apple cider, but some peach comes through. For a whisky of this young age the expected new make character is surprisingly absent. The active first fill bourbon barrel has done a good job removing the unpleasant flavours and reducing the influence of the smoky malt. The whisky is fairly light with a dry aftertaste.

The sherry matured whisky has an amber colour. The new make and smoky character is more pronounced than in the bourbon matured whisky. It’s a bit meaty and feinty. The whisky is spicy with cinnamon and ginger. The dried fruit comes through with raisins and prunes. The whisky is light with a less dry aftertaste than its twin.

A comparison of the two whiskies shows the different influence of the Oloroso cask and the bourbon cask. The small more heavily charred bourbon cask is more active removing the immature and smoky character of the new make. The Oloroso cask is masking the fruity flavour contributing with the spicy and dried fruit character. The bourbon cask is contributing vanilla and coco.

My favourite is definitely the bourbon matured whisky. It’s absolutely drinkable at this young age. The sherry matured whisky needs some more years in the cask.